Recall sponsors filed signatures on petitions targeting 9 state senators - 6 Republican and 3 Democratic. Challenges were filed in all 9 of those campaigns, and the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board approved the six campaigns against Republicans at meetings on May 23 and May 31, and approved the three campaigns against Democrats on June 8.

The laws governing recall in Wisconsin say that an elected official must have served at least one year of the term for which he or she was most recently elected before he or she can be targeted for recall. This means that 8 Republican state senators (out of 19) were eligible for recall and 8 Democratic state senators (out of 14) were eligible for recall before 2011 elapses.[4]

What made the recalls of 2011 so unique is the focused nature of multiple state officials targeted at once. Historically, recalls were aimed at one specific legislator. "Recall is usually an individual matter, rather than a group sport," said Gary Moncrief, a political science professor at Boise State University who studies state legislatures.[5] Ultimately, two GOP senators -- Dan Kapanke and Randy Hopper -- were recalled and defeated by Democratic opponents in 2011.

Recall timeline

Recalls against the six Republicans were all certified on June 3, which set the date for the recall election for July 12, 2011. However, since multiple candidates filed to run against the incumbents, a primary was held on July 12 while the actual recall took place four weeks later, on August 9, 2011. Recall primaries against two Democrats were held July 19, 2011, with the recalls occurring on August 16, 2011. Because there was only one Republican candidate running in District 30, that recall took place on July 19 - incumbent Dave Hansen (D) easily retained his seat against David VanderLeest (R).

Signature challenges

As of May 18, all deadlines were completed based on the following table:[27]

Timeline of GAB Recall Certification Hearing Requirements

Committee

Challenge

Rebuttal

Reply

Committee to Recall Kapanke

April 15

April 22

April 26

Committee to Recall Hopper

April 21

April 28

May 2

Committee to Recall Olsen

May 2

May 9

May 11

Committee to Recall Harsdorf

May 3

May 10

May 12

Recall Dave Hansen

May 5

May 12

May 16

Jim Holperin Recall Committee

May 5

May 12

May 16

Taxpayers to Recall Wirch

May 5

May 12

May 16

Committee to Recall Darling

May 5

May 12

May 16

Committee to Recall Cowles

May 9

May 16

May 18

May 23 meeting

May 23 was the first of two originally scheduled GABmeetings to certify signatures. At that meeting the Board voted to approve recall elections against Randy Hopper, Dan Kapanke, and Luther Olsen, rejecting most of the challenges. This cleared the way for a recall election to be held for these three on July 12.[28] At the meeting on May 31, the GAB approved recalls against Robert Cowles, Alberta Darling, and Sheila Harsdorf. All six were officially certified on June 3, setting the election for July 12.

May 31 meeting

On May 27, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board announced it would be unable to consider the recall petitions for the three Democratic incumbents at the May 31 meeting. Citing "numerous factual and legal issues," the Board said in its statement that more time was needed to ensure that a complete record would be available for examination -- particularly since the decision would likely be appealed to the courts.[29][30]

In a release, GAB officials said they did not expect to be able to hold a hearing on the recalls of Democratic incumbents until the week of June 6, which raised potential legal issues, as the initial extension granted to GAB for certification required it to ultimately make determinations before June 3.[29]

The GAB filed a brief on June 1 asking the court for a one-week extension, which would give them until June 10 to finish working on the three Democratic recalls. The case was heard in Dane County Court at 1:30 pm on Friday, June 3.[32][33]Dane CountyJudge John Markson ruled that there was good cause for the extension, and that the GAB did not violate any rules by taking up the petitions out of order.[34]

June 8 meeting

FOX 11 report on the future of recalls in Wisconsin

On June 7, GAB officials posted four memos for the meeting - one each for Senators Hansen, Holperin, Wirch and an additional memo providing more background. The final memo provides context to the first three. Overall, the GAB memos left the matter unresolved regarding whether the recalls were likely to be certified or rejected.

In the memos, GAB officials invalidated some signatures in much the same way they did for the Republican incumbent petitions. Based on the initial affirming and invalidating, the following totals of signatures would be considered valid:

Those figures would be sufficient to trigger a recall. However, at the end of each memo, officials pointed to the possibility that an even greater number of signatures could be invalidated. The end of each memo reads:

...valid verified signatures, but all subject to review of signatures and involved petition pages pursuant to the circulator address and fraud allegations discussed in the accompanying Memorandum.

GAB officials did not made a recommendation whether petition circulators violated Wisconsin statute §8.40(2) and Wisconsin Administrative code §2.05(14). In its memo, GAB officials requested that the Board determine whether it would enforce certain provisions of those laws regarding the residential address of circulators. In short, those two statutes pertain to the physical address of petition circulators. Democratic challenges to the recall petitions call into question the validity of addresses for some circulators. If a circulator were to violate those statutes, then all signatures on those petitions could in theory be invalidated.

In its memo, GAB officials provided several pages of background and context regarding the certification of recalls. They also posted exhibits on the challenges for Wirch, Holperin, and Hansen.

The next step appeared, therefore to be whether the six-member Board would make an ultimate decision regarding the two areas of Wisconsin law in question. If the Board ruled that the recall campaigns did not violate those laws, then it would likely indicate that the recalls had sufficient numbers of signatures to continue. That would then open the door for possible Democratic lawsuits to bring the recall challenges to the courts -- much like three Republican incumbents had already done.

However, if the Board ruled that the recall campaigns did indeed violate the two statutes, then that opened the possibility for the Board to invalidate enough signatures to bring the recall campaigns below the required threshold. According to the GAB memo, the Board -- if it were to enforce the two statutes -- could invalidate any petition page submitted by circulators that were named in the Democratic challenge. Thereby the recalls would be deemed insufficient and no election date called.

After nearly 9 hours of deliberations, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board certified the recalls of three Democratic incumbents and set an initial election for July 19.[35] Thousands of signatures considered invalid or fraudulently collected were struck from the petitions, but the resulting number was not enough to reject any of them outright.[36]

After hearing challenges to the petitions made by the incumbents, as well as presentations from the respective recall committees and board staff, the Board certified 19,255 signatures to recall Jim Holperin, 17,138 for Robert Wirch, and 15,540 for Dave Hansen.[8] Jeremy Levinson, the attorney for the Democratic incumbents, did not indicate whether an appeal would be filed based on the GAB’s ruling.[37]

Arguing before the Board, Levinson said widespread fraud put into question all of the petitions submitted against Democratic senators, stating, "Part of our presentation today is the way in which this was done makes it clear that not enough signatures appear on these petitions to trigger a recall, and more cannot be relied upon because of the fraud and malfeasance that permeates the entire process.”[38] Democrats also questioned the use of paid petition circulators, which, they said, led in part to the fraud. Eric McLeod, representing the recall campaigns, accused the Democrats of “perpetrating fraud on the board,” and referred to the Democrat’s assertion of fraud as “empty rhetoric.”[39]

GAB staff attorney Shane Falk said the question the Board had to decide was whether the will of the electorate could be determined due to the alleged fraud and paid circulators. "At a certain point, the will of the electorate cannot be determined because of malfeasance," he said.
[40] In the end the six-members of the GAB acknowledged the claims of fraud brought by Democrats, but decided it was not clear enough to throw out entire petitions. GAB Judge Gordon Myse led a push to remove over a hundred signatures collected by one circulator due to repeated claims that she misrepresented the reasons for the petition. Four of the six agreed to strike the signatures in order to show the use of deceit while circulating a petition is unacceptable and carries a penalty.[41]

Democratic spokeswoman Gillian Morris expressed disappointment in the decision, but said "I'm confident that voters of Wisconsin will support senators who stand up for working families and seniors."[39]

Dan Hunt, who lead the campaign to recall Sen. Wirch, expressed satisfaction with the board's final decision and how his campaign was run, saying, "there were no major allegations of fraud in our district, therefore, we can rightfully say that we ran our recall with integrity." Hunt went on to say, "Recalls are the last resort in the political process and should be used only in egregious circumstances. The voters in District 22 demonstrated that they want a chance at voting for a representative that will not abandon them but tough things out and ultimately do their job."[42]

Possible legal action

With the nine recalls certified, one looming question remained over the possibility of legal action to try and delay the recall.

There was some precedent for this from the last time a sitting Wisconsin State Senator was recalled. In 2003, Gary George (D) was recalled by voters and lost in the Democratic primary on October 21, 2003. However, prior to that date, George filed legal challenges that were heard in trial court, appeals court, and ultimately before the state Supreme Court -- before any recall vote could actually take place. The initial signatures for that campaign were filed in June 2003 -- meaning nearly four months elapsed between signature submission and the recall date.

After the GAB certification on May 23, 2011, both state political parties gave vague answers regarding the possibility of legal recourse. Mike Tate, chairman of the state Democratic Party, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he would not deny that Democrats might consider going to court to try to prevent recall elections against the incumbent Democrats. Meanwhile, Mark Jefferson, executive director of the state Republican Party, hinted that the Republican decision would hinder on whether the Democratic Party pursued legal recourse first.[43]

Actions by Republicans

Attorneys for Luther Olsen, Dan Kapanke, and Randy Hopperfiled petitions in Dane County Court on May 31 seeking to stop the recall elections against them. They based their argument on improperly filed paperwork, similar to the argument they previously used before the GAB and saw rejected. The court petitions alleged that recall petitioners did not correctly register with the GAB and thus the 60-day period to collect signatures did not start, meaning every signature collected was "dated outside the circulation period" and therefore invalid.[44]

Actions by Democrats

Following the certification of the recall petitions against three targeted Democrats on June 8, Levinson did not immediately indicate whether an appeal would be filed based on the GAB’s ruling.[37] Soon after, the party appealed the decision with the Dane County Circuit Court due to what they said was widespread fraud.

State Chairman Mike Tate said, "The GAB agreed that out-of-state circulators hired by the Republican Party to gather recall signatures committed repeated and flagrant acts of election fraud upon the people of Wisconsin. A higher authority should review this stunning conspiracy to defraud the voters, and throw out all the signatures gathered by these deceitful circulators."[48]

While thousands of signatures were rejected by the Board, Democrats said that if Wisconsin statutes were followed to the letter there would not be enough signatures for any of the recalls.[49]

Consolidating the lawsuits

Attorney for the Republicans, Eric McLeod, said on June 20 that he supported consolidating all of the cases brought by Republicans and Democrats into one case to expedite the process.[50] The following day, the state Department of Justice, on behalf of the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, filed a motion to consolidate all of the cases into one. Attorney for the Democrats, Jeremy Levinson said it would slow down the process.[51]

Hearings

Judge Richard Niess said voters should assume that primary elections for challengers in the six recalls against Republicans would go ahead as planned on July 12. Niess planed to rule on lawsuits brought by the nine incumbent senators prior to the first primaries, and ordered that all of the lawsuits be consolidated into one case.[53]

After hearing arguments on July 8, Judge Niess ruled that all of the nine recalls should proceed, saying that election officials had already thoroughly and correctly addressed the complaints.[55]GAB director and general counsel Kevin Kennedy said of the decision, “I want to express my gratitude that the court upheld the well-thought-out decisions of the Government Accountability Board, which were backed up by the incredible hard work of the Board’s dedicated staff to ensure all the parties received fair consideration of their recall petitions and challenges.”[56]

Fake candidates

GOP officials put spoiler candidates on the Democratic ballot in order to force a primary, effectively delaying the actual recall elections by four weeks.[57]

There were six individuals who were called fake Democratic candidates. All six were defeated in the July 12 primary. They were:

Isaac Weix, District 10. Weix previously ran for the state Assembly as a Republican. He was defeated by Shelly Moore in the primary.

Rol Church, District 14. Church is retired. He has a history of donating to Republican candidates. Church lost to Fred Clark in the primary.

John Buckstaff, District 18. Buckstaff is retired. He has a history of donating to Republican candidates. He was defeated by Jessica King in the primary.

James Smith, District 32. Smith is a former member of the La Crosse County Republican executive committee. Jennifer Shilling defeated him in the primary.

Placeholder candidates

On June 10, the group We Are Wisconsin called on Democrats to run fake candidates as well. Communications Director Kelly Steele issued a statement saying, "Given the situation Republicans have so despicably concocted to manipulate these recall elections, it is the opinion of We Are Wisconsin that it would be in the interest of Democrats to run candidates in the Republican primaries to ensure the dates of the general election are predictably on August 9th, and that Republicans are forced to win a primary election instead of diverting their unlimited resources to back their “fake” candidates against “legitimate” Democrats."[58]

The following day Mike Tate, Chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, released a statement saying the party would not run fake GOP candidates - "We cannot and will not stoop to the Republicans' level by encouraging candidates to lie about their party affiliation, or recommending that people try to deceive voters. We never have done that, and won’t start now. This is something that every single one of our six challengers has said they adamantly oppose. Fred Clark, Jess King, Shelly Moore, Nancy Nusbaum, Jen Shilling and Sandy Pasch -- along with Senator Miller -- all contacted the party over the last 24 hours to make it crystal clear this was absolutely the wrong tactic."[59]

However, Tate went on to say that Democrats would be running "placeholder" candidates in order to force primaries. Gillian Morris, press secretary for the state Democratic Party, said that they were not worried about splitting the primary vote as the placeholder candidates would not be campaigning.[60]

There were three individuals who had been called placeholder Democratic candidates. They are:

Following the news that all six fake Democrats had turned in their final paperwork to get on the ballot to the GAB, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin announced that it would not be running their placeholder candidates in the recalls as they are no longer necessary. Party Chair Mike Tate explained, "The goal of the placeholder candidacies was to create an insurance policy against further Republican attempts to exploit the recall election schedule through dirty tricks and cynical plots."[61]

All three had filed nomination papers with a sufficient number of verified signatures.

Reactions

Leadership

Stephan Thompson, Executive Director of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, issued a statement on June 6 indicating that the party was advocating fake candidates run because Republicans were at a disadvantage. "Because of this disadvantage, and the outrageous nature of elected officials facing recall for standing up for a balanced budget, the Republican Party of Wisconsin has advocated that protest candidates run in Democratic primaries to ensure that Republican legislators have ample time to communicate with voters throughout their districts after the state budget is approved," he said.[62]

Democratic Senate Leader Mark Miller called the move a "partisan, coordinated attack on democracy," and "Nixonion tactics," saying, "we don't need to waste taxpayer money on phony elections to help these Republicans duck the voters and needlessly delay these elections."[64]

Incumbents

Randy Hopper has said he would have liked the recall election to happen as soon as possible, and hoped that there is no primary race.[66]

A spokesman for Sheila Harsdorf said she did not support the protest candidacy and had nothing to do with it.

Luther Olsen - "I have no idea if it will hurt or help. If it stretches the election out I don't know if that's good or bad. There are so many strange things happening in this business."[67]

Alberta Darling released a statement saying, "In no way whatsoever was I involved in the efforts by the Republican Party of Wisconsin to recruit and run a protest candidate against my opponent."[68]

Democratic candidates

Shelly Moore released a statement, saying, "the Republican Party must immediately shut down this partisan, coordinated attack on democracy that wastes taxpayer dollars. These elections must get underway so the State can heal. These underhanded tactics serve no purpose but to divide us further."[69]

Jessica King said Senator Hopper should tell the fake candidate to stop the process, but said it wouldn't change her strategy. "I just get four more weeks to campaign and talk with voters. It's a longer campaign. It may increase my budget, but I'm not worried about it," she said.[67]

Nancy Nusbaum called the move "a mockery of the democratic process," and "a sign of desperation."[70]

Sandy Pasch said, "It's a little appalling to me that they are running a fake Democrat."[71]

"Fake" candidates

John Buckstaff wrote, "After watching the protest in Madison led by the unions and Democratic Party I have decided to run as a protest candidate against Jessica King in the Democratic primary. I make no apologies for this action as I view the recall of Senator Hopper as wrong. Hopefully everyone will see this as another example of what democracy looks like...Liberals aren't the only ones with a right to protest and I want to bring people's attention to what is happening to a person (Hopper) who did the job we elected him to do while others fled the state."[67]

James Smith explained his candidacy - “I want to bring light on the issue that 22,000 signatures can pretty much overturn an election where even the loser got 40,000 votes.” Shilling’s campaign declined to comment on his candidacy.[72]

Otto Junkermann, when asked if he was a "spoiler candidate," replied, “I don’t know how I could avoid being considered that.”[70]

Fake candidates in context

The recruitment of such “fake candidates” is not unprecedented, and in fact even happened in Wisconsin as recently as summer 2010. In the 2010 race for the 25th Assembly district, Andrew Wisniewski ran as a Republican against incumbent Independent Robert Ziegelbauer and Democrat Kerry Trask.[73]. Wisniewski was reportedly recruited to run by Jason Sidener, a political action representative for the union ASFCME. "It is in our interest to see that Bob is defeated and having opponents from both parties helps that," Sidener said.[74] Prior to the race, Ziegelbauer commented on what he thought was a sham campaign. "It's pretty obvious to everyone that the Madison Democratic machinery put up a fake candidate to put a name on the ballot because they think it will screw up our election in the 25th Assembly District," he said.[75] The chairman of the Manitowoc County Republican Party -- where Wisniewski is from -- wrote in a letter to the Manitowoc Daily Herald that Wisniewski is not a Republican.[73]

Meanwhile, other states have encountered "fake candidates" as well. There have been allegations that longtime IllinoisSpeaker of the HouseMichael Madigan (D) ran against recruited candidates in 2006, 2008, and 2010 in order to give the appearance of competition. While election results will show he faced a Republican opponent, local GOP officials have said they had never even heard of the candidates.[76]

But the fake candidates don’t end with the Midwest. Additionally in 2010, a Republican in Arizona recruited homeless people to run on the Green Party ticket[77], and a Democratic Party official in Michigan resigned for his role in running 23 candidates on the Tea Party ticket.[78]

Chances of winning

While the “fake” candidates were generally seen as protest candidates put on the ballot to give the Republicans more time to campaign, there was a possibility that they could win. Because Wisconsin has an open primary system, voters do not have to be registered to a specific party in order to cast a vote in the primary. Therefore, Republican-leaning voters could have crossed-over to the Democratic primary and vice-versa.

According to Mordecai Lee, political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and former Democratic state lawmaker, none of the races were safe wins for the “real” candidates. "For all six of them, this is a real threat. This is a real election; this is not a walk for anybody,” he said.[79] Lee cited low turnout rates for primaries and the possibility of heavy spending by Republicans to get out the vote as major factors on the outcome.

Others, however, saw the chance of one or more of the “fake” candidates winning as possible, but not probable. Charles Franklin, also a political scientist at UW-Madison, said a win would require “a tremendous amount of coordinated effort" to turn voters towards a certain candidate, and then actually get them to show up at the polls.

Wisconsin Democratic Party spokeswoman Gillian Morris said were “not concerned” about the primaries, while state Republican Party spokeswoman Katie McCallum said that the GOP was not going to help any of the “fake” Democrats with advertising or vote efforts, and that none of them were expected to win.[79]

Robert Cowles

About 26,000 signatures to recall Cowles were filed on April 28, 2011. This set of signatures was the ninth set of signatures filed in the 16 different state senate recalls that occurred in Wisconsin.[83] On May 31 the GAB rejected most of the challenges to the signatures, giving the go ahead for a recall election.[84] Democrat Nancy Nusbaum ran against him. The GAB officially certified the recall election on June 3. Since multiple candidate filed, a primary was held July 12 and the recall election was August 9.[85]

Alberta Darling

About 30,000 signatures to recall Darling were filed on April 21, 2011.[89] On May 31 the GAB upheld some of the challenges to the petition, but ultimately gave the go ahead for a recall election.[90] Democratic Assemblywoman Sandy Pasch ran against her. The GAB officially certified the recall election on June 3. Since there were multiple candidates, a primary was held on July 12 and the recall election took place on August 9.[91]

Gladys Huber, a longtime Republican supporter, ran as a protest candidate in order to necessitate a Democratic primary between herself and Pasch. Nicholas Brehm was running as a "placeholder" Democrat but did not file final paperwork.

Sheila Harsdorf

About 23,000 signatures to recall Harsdorf were filed on April 19, 2011, about 7,000 more than the 15,744 that were necessary.[94][95] On May 31, the GAB threw out most of the challenges to the petition, giving the go ahead for a recall election.[96] Democrat Shelly Moore ran against her. The GAB officially certified the recall election on June 3. Since multiple candidates filed, a primary was held July 12 and the recall election took place on August 9.[97]

Isaac Weix, a Republican supporter, ran as a protest candidate in order to necessitate a Democratic primary between himself and Moore.

Dave Hansen

About 18,870 signatures to recall Hansen were filed on April 21, 2011.[102] In early May the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board verified 17,099 signatures on the petition, enough to force a recall. They disqualified over 1,700 but still had to review some 5,500 that have been challenged by Hansen.[103]

The GAB was initially scheduled to review the challenges on May 31, but that was delayed until June 8. At that meeting, the Board validated 15,540 signatures, enough for the recall, setting the election date for July 19.[8] Republican Assemblyman John Nygren and leader of the recall campaign David VanderLeest were running against him, but the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board found Nygren was two valid signatures short of the required 400.[104]

Nygren appealed the GAB decision in circuit court,[105] but the original decision was upheld. Nygren blamed the outcome on “Democrat-appointed GAB staff that has constantly worked against me as I defended myself from the Democratic Party’s frivolous challenges.”[106]

Jim Holperin

About 23,000 signatures to recall Holperin were filed on April 21, 2011.[108] The GAB was initially scheduled to review challenges to the position on May 31, but it was delayed until June 8. At that meeting the GAB verified 19,255 signatures, enough for the recall, setting the election date for July 19.[8]

Randy Hopper

23,946 signatures to recall Hopper were filed on April 7, 2011.[111] This set of signatures was the second set of signatures filed in the 16 different state senate recall campaigns that took place Wisconsin.[112] On May 23, the GAB rejected most challenges to the petition, clearing the way for a recall election.[113] Democrat Jessica King ran against him. Hopper's attorneys filed papers in Dane County Court on May 31, seeking to stop the recall election[44], but this was ultimately rejected. The GAB officially certified the recall election on June 3. Since multiple candidates filed, a primary was held July 12 and the recall election took place on August 9.[114]

John Buckstaff, a Republican supporter, ran as a protest candidate in order to necessitate a Democratic primary between himself and King.[66] Hopper said he wanted the recall election to happen as soon as possible.

Supporters of Hopper began distributing flyers in the district to get out the vote for Buckstaff in the July 12 primary.[115] The flyer described King as a "Pro-Union Extremist" who would put unions first "even if it bankrupts Wisconsin." Meanwhile, Buckstaff was described as "Pro-Wisconsin," saying he would "eliminate special privileges for government unions." The flyer was paid for by a group called "Patriot Advisors."[116]

Dan Kapanke

Needing 15,588 to force a recall, petitioners submitted an estimated 30,000 signatures[121] to the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board on April 1, 2011.[122][123] The signatures submitted to recall Kapanke were the first set of signatures submitted in the overall recall battle.[124] On May 23, the GAB rejected most challenges to the petition, clearing the way for a recall election.[125] Democratic Assemblywoman Jennifer Shilling ran against him. Kapanke's attorneys filed papers in Dane County Court on May 31, seeking to stop the recall election[44], but this was ultimately rejected. The GAB officially certified the recall election on June 3. This set the stage for a July 12 election, but since multiple candidates filed, a primary was held July 12 and the recall election took place on August 9.[126]

At a meeting of the La Crosse County Republicans on May 25, a secret recording captured leaders considering running a spoiler candidate against Shilling in order to necessitate a primary and push back the recall election.[127] La Crosse County Republican Party Chair Bill Feehan said he met with an attorney and would file suit against the person who made the recording.[128] On June 7, James Smith, a recent member of the La Crosse County Republican executive committee, announced he would run as a protest candidate in order to necessitate a Democratic primary between himself and Shilling. He explained his candidacy - “I want to bring light on the issue that 22,000 signatures can pretty much overturn an election where even the loser got 40,000 votes.”[129]

Luther Olsen

About 24,000 signatures to recall Olsen were filed on April 18, 2011.[134] On May 23 the GAB rejected most challenges to the petition, clearing the way for a recall election.[135] Democratic Assemblyman Fred Clark ran against him. Olsen's attorneys filed papers in Dane County Court on May 31, seeking to stop the recall election,[44] but this was ultimately rejected. The GAB officially certified the recall election on June 3, setting the stage for a July 12 election. However, since multiple candidates filed, a primary was held July 12 and the recall election took place on August 9.[136]

Rol Church, a Republican supporter, ran as a protest candidate in order to necessitate a Democratic primary between himself and Fred Clark.[66]Robert Forseth was running as a "placeholder" Democrat but did not file final paperwork.

Robert Wirch

About 18,300 signatures to recall Wirch were filed on April 21, 2011.[140] The GAB was initially scheduled to review challenges to the petition on May 31, but it was delayed until June 8. At that meeting the GAB verified 17,138 signatures, enough for the recall, setting the election date for July 19.[8] However, since multiple candidates filed, a primary between the two was held July 19, with the recall on August 16.

Kenosha County Board supervisor Fred Ekornaas said in early May he planned to run against Wirch if a recall election happened.[141] As of May 7 he had not be endorsed by the Republican Party.[142] Attorney Jonathan Steitz announced his bid on May 17, 2011.[143]

Dan Hunt, the organizer of the recall campaign, was said to have considered running.[144]

Campaign contributions

The tables below detail campaign contributions as reported to the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board by the incumbents and recall committees. However, these contributions are only those that were required by the GAB. Donations to 501c4 organizations are not subject to disclosure to GAB, and therefore are more difficult to track. These spending figures are only visible when the organization files a 990 with the federal government. The 2011 calendar year form is due to the government by May 15, 2012. Because organizations can extend that to October at no penalty, by the time the form is turned in and eventually released to the public, it is likely to be sometime in 2013.

But even the 990 itself does not actually reveal very many details. The form does not require revealing expenditures or vendors. Expenditures are typically lumped into one category. In other words, the 990 would not reveal how much spending for an organization went to one reason or another.

Therefore, it was expected that the bulk of spending on the recall campaigns would be likely to come from outside groups like 501c4’s that are not affiliated directly with any particular campaign. The recent Prosser election indicated the spending would likely be in the multi-millions.

For example, the Prosser and Kloppenburg campaigns each received $300,000 in public funds for the election. But according to the Brennan Center -- a nonpartisan public policy and law institute that studies campaign finance -- 501c4 groups spent more than $3 million on tv ads alone earlier this year.[147] That does not include online advertisements, newspaper ads, or other non-tv forms of ad spending.

The Prosser election was built up as the undercard to the main event of the recalls. Therefore, it was expected that an even greater sum of outside money would flow into the recall races.

Mike McCabe, executive director of the nonpartisan Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, referred to the amounts being raised for the recalls as "ungodly sums." "It's safe to say that we're going to see some million-dollar-plus senate elections here. We've seen some seven-figure spending in senate races before in Wisconsin, but it's very rare. You'll see that in these recall elections," he said.[148] McCabe also said that the Citizens United Supreme Court case will have a dramatic impact on the recalls. "The candidates will be bystanders in their own elections," McCabe said.[149]

Funds raised by incumbents

Here are the following sums of campaign funds raised by the nine incumbents facing recall. All figures are as of June 1, 2011.

Campaign finance complaints

The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign filed campaign finance complaints on June 7 against Republicans Randy Hopper and Dan Kapanke, and Democrat Dave Hansen for failing to disclose occupation and employer information about campaign contributors.[150] Hopper’s campaign report covering January 1 to April 18 was found to be missing employer information on 23 contributions totaling $42,650. Kapanke’s report from the same period was missing data on 12 contributions totaling 6,150, while Hansen had missing info on 14 contributions totaling $2,939. Under Wisconsin law, any contributor who gives over $100 in a calendar year must disclose their occupation and employer.

The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign announced that they found undisclosed occupation and employer information for four of the other campaigns as well. But the Hopper, Kapanke and Hansen campaigns were by far the most. On the Democratic side, Robert Wirch was missing information on five contributions totaling $1,225 and Jim Holperin did not properly identify one contributor who gave a total of $150. For the Republicans, Sheila Harsdorf did not have information on three contributions totaling $1,325 and Alberta Darling had missing info on four contributors totaling $950. Luther Olsen’s report properly identified all of his donors, while Robert Cowles did not file any campaign finance reports.[151]

Impact on redistricting

During the recalls, the Wisconsin legislature was in the midst of redrawing state and congressional districts, which had to be completed by the end of the 2011 session. Republican control of the governorship, house, and senate gave them power over the process. However, the recall elections had the possibility to significantly alter that. If Democrats were able to hold onto their three senate seats and win an additional three, the balance of the senate would swing into their control, giving them power over redistricting in that body and creating a divided government.

Sensing that Republicans may try to speed through redistricting legislation before the recalls, Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Mike Tate issued a statement saying, in part:[153]

Wisconsin's redistricting process has never gone forward under such a dark ethical cloud. Conceived in darkness and obscured from the voters, this heinous redistricting plot now is foisted on Wisconsin as a fait accompli.Never before in Wisconsin's modern history has the process taken place without local participation and the creation of wards. Never before have the people of this state had so substantial a decision made in such an absence of democratic principle.

It was reported on June 23 that legislative leaders had redrawn state Senate and Assembly maps, but were keeping them mostly secret, even from their own party members. Speaker of the AssemblyJeff Fitzgerald said he shared the maps with fellow Republicans in his chamber and was deciding whether to pass them in July, prior to the recall elections.

During the last redistricting cycle following the 2000 census, Democrats controlled the Senate and Republicans the Assembly. Unable to agree on a map, the task was ultimately completed by the courts.[155]

Impact of Voter ID law

Prior to the recall elections, the Wisconsin State Legislature passed a voter ID bill that would, among other changes, require voters to show photo identification when they go to the polls. In a contentious debate, Democrats criticized the measure as an act of voter suppression and disenfranchisement. Republicans argued the bill would help to reduce voter fraud. In a statement Gov.Scott Walker (R) said, "If you need an ID to buy cold medicine, it's reasonable to require it to vote."[156] He signed the bill into law on May 25, 2011.[157]
While Republicans have pushed for similar bills in the past, some Democrats criticized the timing, calling it a deliberate act to influence the recall elections in their favor. During the recalls, however, the law was in a "soft implementation" phase, where voters were asked for photo ID, but not required to show one. Full implementation will not take place until February 2012. Due to this incremental implementation, there was concern voters would be confused, something the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board sought to prevent though an educational campaign that included billboards, radio, and television ads. The bill did not include any funding for implementation or education. Several organizations, including the League of Women Voters, also planned similar campaigns to inform the public of the changes.[158] Estimates show the cost to implement the bill could range between $5 and $7.5 million.[157]

Other changes brought on by the voter ID bill included the following:

In order to vote, citizens are required to live in the state for 28 days prior to an election, increased from 10 days.

For the recall elections on July 12, in-state residents who move to a new house or apartment after June 14 had to vote in their old district.

Neighbors could no longer vouch for one another and parents can no longer vouch for voting-age children who live in their house.

The period for absentee ballot voting was shortened from three weeks to two.

Cutoff date for accepting absentee ballots was changed from the Monday before an election to Friday before the election.

The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin planned to have volunteers serving as poll watchers during the recalls to ensure the new law worked correctly. Executive director Andrea Kaminski said, "We’ll also be looking for any signs of voters who are disenfranchised whose votes might not count because of it."[159]

Free IDs

The DMV began offering free IDs to many voters on July 1. A new form for those getting or renewing an ID now includes a box asking if they will be 18 by the next election, are an American citizen and need a free ID card to vote. If that criteria is met, along with proof of name, birth date and address, the ID is provided free of charge.[160] Officials are projecting the free IDs will result in a loss of $1.9 million to the state transportation fund.[161]

New law in practice

The first time the new law was put into practice was during the July 12 Democratic primaries. Although the law was in the "soft implementation" phase, clerks in Fox Valley said they did not have any major problems. Outagamie County Clerk Lori O'Bright said, "Things ran very smoothly. This election, things went very well."[162]

GAB spokesman Reid Magney said there were a few issues at the polls due to the law, but that most were misunderstandings.

Additional reading

National impact

What makes the recalls so historic is not just the attention in Wisconsin, but also the nationwide chain reaction. The recalls have served as a lighting rod for progressive coalition building across the country. Other states -- such as Michigan and Maine -- pursued recall in some manner. Meanwhile, the "Paul Ryan budget" also drew national attention to Wisconsin.

Michigan

Governor of MichiganRick Snyder won a resounding election in 2010 by 14%. His subsequent steps to repair the beleaguered state's economy were both decisive and divisive. Only months into his term, a formal recall effort was circulating petitions. Michigan's governor may not be recalled for 180 days after taking office; recall signatures, however, may be gathered as soon as 90 days after the inauguration, provided they are not officially submitted until the 180th day or later. In this case, the earliest date for any signatures to be submitted was July 1, 2011.

Working under umbrella group FireRickSnyder.org, petitioners began collecting signatures on May 21, 2011.[163] The law allows them a 90 day window to circulate petitions, meaning they had until August 20, 2011 to amass the minimum of 806,522 valid signatures, a number equal to 25% of the ballots cast for the governor in the most recent election. Anticipating that one in five signatures would be discarded, the group sought 1.1 million signatures. Organizers worked to meet that number earlier – by August 5, 2011 – the deadline to place a ballot initiative on the November 8, 2011 ballot.[164]

Maine

Maine does not currently have citizen recall for state officials. Undaunted, organizers began working to create that process and then apply it to freshman Republican GovernorPaul LePage. The ire at LePage crystallized when he ordered the removal and storage of an overtly political piece of taxpayer-funded artwork hanging in the state's Department of Labor. The governor held that a conference room meant for mediating disputes between employees and managers ought not be decorated with a mural whose political message is unmistakeable. His opponents, though, took it a the opening volley of a partisan war on blue collar voters and used the anger to focus recall efforts.[165]

Cynthia Dill, a Portland Democrat who sat in the House at the time and has since been elevated to the Senate in a special election, began both a legislative and a petition process to bring recall to Maine. Her site, run jointly with MoveOn.org, at SignOn.org, said Maine needed recall and began collecting the 20,000 signatures. By June 8, 2011, the page boasted 18,940 names. That petition is carrying Mainers' hopes for recall as the bill, HP1006, was indefinitely postponed and then placed in the legislative files on April 14, 2011 – a polite way of declaring it dead. The Senate never took action, though Dill's new office may herald a renewed effort.[166]

National focus and support

The Wisconsin recalls have received focus, as well as support, from organizations and events around the country.

Wisconsin recalls were a major focus at the sixth annual Netroots Nation meeting, a Progressive conference, held June 16-19 in Minneapolis.[167] The first day included a panel titled, "The Wisconsin 14, the Recall and the Impact of National Organizing in Wisconsin," which included speakers from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America, and MoveOn.[168] Freshman Wisconsin state Sen. Chris Larson was slated to be on the panel but canceled in order to stay in Madison and vote on the state budget.[169] Later in the day the impact of bloggers was the focus of a panel called, "Bloggers Unite! How the Netroots Rallied in Wisconsin."[170]

At RightOnline, a Conservative conference that was also held in Minneapolis on June 17-18, Wisconsin was also a central focus. Americans for Prosperity, who funded the conference, sponsored the "Wisconsin Freedom Phonebanks," which AFP-Wisconsin state director Matt Seaholm said was "set up for citizen identification, asking people where they stand on the issues -- just kind of identifying people to see what they think of the recalls going on, but also the governor's plan on collective bargaining."[171] He estimated 150 Wisconsin activists attended the conference.

In Seattle, a concert was held on June 18 in support of the recall efforts against Republicans. All proceeds went to the Wisconsin Recall Task Force to be used for the July and August elections. Performer and organizer Gary Kanter said, "The people of Wisconsin need to know that their friends and neighbors throughout our nation have their backs and that their fight is our fight as well." Along with the musical acts, Washington state SenatorMaralyn Chase (D) and state RepresentativeLuis Moscoso (D) also spoke at the event.[172]

EMILY’s List(dead link), a national organization which lists its mission as "electing pro-choice Democratic women to office,"[173] announced on June 14 that it would donate funds to 5 Democratic candidates in the recalls. The organization set up a website(dead link) for the campaign, which included profiles on the candidates - Jessica King, Shelly Moore, Nancy Nusbaum, Sandy Pasch, and Jennifer Shilling. While not disclosing how much they planned to spend, a press release from the group states they would "operate entirely as an independent expenditure organization,"[174] a move which exempted them from the legal limits that campaigns and political parties must adhere to.[175]

Democracy for America, a group founded by Howard Dean, promised at the Netroots conference to spend $1.5 million on the recalls, stating that the group had already spent $200,000 to support the 14 Democratic state senators while they were in Illinois.[176] The organization also bussed activists from the convention to Wisconsin in order to knock on doors for the Democratic candidates in the recalls.[171]

A fundraiser benefiting the recall efforts against Republicans was held on July 7 in Washington D.C. Individual tickets started at $250, while it will cost patrons $2,500, sponsors $5,000, and hosts $10,000, with all of the money going to the America Vote Action Fund. The event was headlined by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and featured Democratic Wisconsin Representatives Ron Kind, Gwen Moore and Tammy Baldwin.[177]

In reaction, Stephan Thompson, Executive Director of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, stated, “Wisconsin Democrats just aren’t finding the support they need at home, so in an act of desperation they’ve turned to Nancy Pelosi’s influence among D.C.’s liberal lobbying crowd to save the day. If we needed another sign of how out of touch Wisconsin Democrats truly are, this is it.”[178]

The American Federation for Children, a national organization promoting school choice, became involved in the recalls in mid-July with an ad in support of Alberta Darling and a call for donations in order to "counter the resources of anti-reform special interest groups."[179]

Background

Targeted Democratic senators

Eight Democratic state senators were eligible for recall in the first part of 2011 because they were elected to the terms they were currently serving in November 2008 and therefore, the year in office that must elapse before they can be subjected to a recall election had elapsed. Four additional Democratic members of the Wisconsin State Senate were sworn-in on January 3, 2011. They were therefore not subject to a recall petition prior to January 3, 2012.

All eight Democratic state senators who were eligible for a recall in 2011 have had recall petitions taken out against them.

Targeted Republican senators

Eight Republican state senators were eligible for recall in the first part of 2011 because they were elected to the terms they were serving in November 2008 and therefore, the year in office that must elapse before they can be subjected to a recall election had elapsed. The nine additional Republican members of the Wisconsin State Senate were sworn-in on January 3, 2011. They were therefore not subject to a recall petition prior to January 3, 2012.

Recall petitions against all eight Republicans who can be recalled were taken out on March 2, 2011.

Recall process

In order to force a recall election, signatures must be collected on recall petitions. The number of signatures that must be collected is 25% of the number of votes cast for the office of Governor of Wisconsin in the most recent gubernatorial election in the district where the recall is sought

Recall signatures are to be submitted to the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, which must check the signatures to ensure that enough of them are valid to meet the minimum threshold for a recall election.

The name of the targeted incumbent automatically appears on the ballot for the special recall election, unless the incumbent specifically declines to have his or her name on the ballot.

Candidates who wish to run for the seat that will become vacant if the recall succeeds can collect signatures to have their name appear on the special recall election ballot. As a result, the seat can be made vacant (if voters approve the recall), and re-filled, on the same day and in the same election.

However, if more than one person from a political party files to run in the special recall election, the recall election date becomes a de facto primary, and the final election must be held 4 weeks later.

Compared to other states

In the 18 states that allow state legislative recall, the shortest time granted to recall organizers to collect the required number of signatures is 60 days. Only three states allow just 60 days, and Wisconsin is one of them. (The other two that allow just 60 days are Colorado and Idaho.) Seven states allow 90 days and the remaining 8 states allow more than 90 days.

In the 18 states with state legislative recall, 15 states base the number of signatures required to force a recall election as a percentage of the number of votes cast in the most recent election for the office held by the incumbent whose recall is sought. Wisconsin is just one of 3 states (the other two being Michigan and Oregon) where the number of signatures is a percentage of the number of votes cast for the office of governor in the legislative district where the incumbent is targeted.

7 of the 18 states that allow state legislative recall require that specific types of wrongdoing or lack of fitness for serving in office be the case before a recall can go forward; Wisconsin is not one of those states.

Possible changes

Republican leaders said on June 20 that they were considering legislation for the fall that would make it more difficult to recall state officials. Assembly SpeakerJeff Fitzgerald said the recalls were slowing down the legislative process and that he believes some Democrats would support changing the laws governing recall.

Assembly Minority LeaderPeter Barca disagreed, stating, "I think it's extremely unlikely that they would get support (from Democrats). I don't think they are going to get any traction on this. From a political standpoint, it looks like politicians trying to avoid accountability."[186]

In order to change the laws, legislation would have to be passed during two legislative sessions and then approved by voters in a statewide referendum.

The first state legislative recall in the United States was in 1913 in California, when Marshall Black was recalled after being convicted of embezzlement.

Altogether, between 1913-2010, there have been 20 state legislative recall elections. In spite of the fact that state legislative recall is available in 18 states, all of the 20 state legislative elections that have occurred have occurred in just five states: California, Idaho, Michigan, Oregon and Wisconsin.

13 of the recall elections were directed at state senators. 8 of the 13 were recalled.

7 of the recall elections were directed at state representatives. 5 of the 7 were recalled.

Of the 20 state legislative recall elections prior to 2011, 13 out of 20 resulted in the state legislator being recalled.

Scott Walker

Republican Gov.Scott Walker was also elected on November 2, 2010 and is ineligible for recall until 2012. Democrats at their annual state convention on June 3-4 indicated that they intended to launch a recall effort against Walker.[187] It was reported on June 15 that People First Superior set up a phone bank to rally support for the possible recall and that they will continue to hold phone banks weekly.[188]

The "Chequamegon Bay Committee to Recall Walker" was formed in June 2011. The Political Action Committee will hold fundraisers and assist "local citizens obtain their Wisconsin state ID's so they are able to vote," according to an email sent by the committee treasurer, Darlene Neff.[189] A total of 540,208 valid signatures will be needed to trigger a recall election of Walker.

Following an appearance in Washington, D.C. in June, Walker said most voters in his state are not interested in the recalls and "are ready to move on." He went on to say, “And I don’t just mean one party or another. I think just in general. The average citizen in Wisconsin I talk to, it’s like they’ve had it … They want us to be talking about jobs. They want us to be focused on that … And so having another political campaign -- it’s going to happen, it’s not like they can avoid it. But it’s not something they’re particularly interested in.”[190]